Linux-Advocacy Digest #984, Volume #28 Thu, 7 Sep 00 21:13:06 EDT
Contents:
Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: Computer and memory ("Aaron R. Kulkis")
Re: How low can they go...? ("Ermine Todd")
Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?] (Eric Bennett)
Re: How low can they go...? ("D'Arcy Smith")
Re: A guise for Marxism (Was: businesses are psychopaths (Craig Brozefsky)
Re: How low can they go...?
Re: Why I hate Windows...
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: [OT] Public v. Private Schools
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 20:42:20 -0400
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
> On Thu, 07 Sep 2000 17:25:12 -0400, Aaron R. Kulkis wrote:
>
> >Of course....in the US, the incomong junior high students are
> >also mis-educated, with idiotic ideas like "invented spelling" and
> >"see and say" reading.
>
> Well, I went to an American public school for a year, as did my brother
> and sister, and none of us did anything of the sort.
This is being taught in the K-3 years. If they are thoroughly
propagandized by 4th grade that there is no 'correct' spelling,
then they are pretty much lost to everything.
>
> Personally, I'm dead set against these mickey-mouse schemes. IMO, they're
> a scam and they seem to be designed to keep the dumb kids dumb ( dumb
> but confident ) by legitimising errors.
However, since the threshold for achievement has been lowered,
the SMART kids don't bother to learn, either.
>
> --
> Donovan
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Aaron R. Kulkis" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To: comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: Computer and memory
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 20:46:37 -0400
"Colin R. Day" wrote:
>
> "Aaron R. Kulkis" wrote:
>
> >
> > The problem in the UK is that too many people are fearful of
> > self-reliance and so insist on socialism, which is VERY wasteful
> > of natinoal resources.
> >
>
> So the resources really belong to the nation?
By that, i mean aggregate resources under the control of the government
AND it's citizenry.
Socialism requires that vast resources be taken out of the private
sector and dumped into the public sector....where they are promptly
squandered by idiots who are not restrained ( by profit/loss motive)
to use those resources in a wise, beneficial manner.
Here in the US, we see that the welfare state actually PROMOTES the
poverty-life style, as opposed to getting people moved on to jobs.
Remember the hue and cry from the welfare-state employees when
welfare reform legislation started going through?
Sure, the poverty pimps talked about "millions of dead starving in
the streets", but their REAL fear was that they, too, would have
to get real jobs.
>
> Colin Day
--
Aaron R. Kulkis
Unix Systems Engineer
ICQ # 3056642
I: "Having found not one single carbon monoxide leak on the entire
premises, it is my belief, and Willard concurs, that the reason
you folks feel listless and disoriented is simply because
you are lazy, stupid people"
J: Loren Petrich's 2-week stubborn refusal to respond to the
challenge to describe even one philosophical difference
between himself and the communists demonstrates that, in fact,
Loren Petrich is a COMMUNIST ***hole
A: The wise man is mocked by fools.
B: "Jeem" Dutton is a fool of the pathological liar sort.
C: Jet plays the fool and spews out nonsense as a method of
sidetracking discussions which are headed in a direction
that she doesn't like.
D: Jet claims to have killfiled me.
E: Jet now follows me from newgroup to newsgroup
...despite (D) above.
F: Neither Jeem nor Jet are worthy of the time to compose a
response until their behavior improves.
G: Unit_4's "Kook hunt" reminds me of "Jimmy Baker's" harangues against
adultery while concurrently committing adultery with Tammy Hahn.
H: Knackos...you're a retard.
------------------------------
From: "Ermine Todd" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 17:38:33 -0700
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:8p92ne$c3e$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
>
>
> No, that cideotape came much latter, I am talking about the original
claims.
> Which was not limited to only newwr versions. So! You NOW admit that
> Microsoft has failed to permit the purchasers of their original version of
> Windows 95 to the latter upgrade versions of the OS permitting upgrade
ONLY
> through purchase of news prebuilt computers systems that came with the
newer
> versions of Windows 95 bundled in.
>
>
Could you try again? What you wrote makes no sense.
--ET--
------------------------------
From: Eric Bennett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy,comp.os.os2.advocacy,comp.sys.mac.advocacy
Subject: Re: Sherman Act vaguery [was: Would a M$ Voluntary Split Save It?]
Date: Thu, 07 Sep 2000 21:03:47 -0400
In article <8p82qe$4es$[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, "2 + 2"
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >I don't find it a coincidence that Jackson took the opinion of the
> >Supreme Court justice most likely to be sympathetic to Microsoft's
> >cause, and used that opinion to condemn Microsoft.
>
> I can only assume your analysis depends on separate products being shown,
> i.e non tech-tying, regarded the browser issue. Is this correct?
Yes, that is how I understand it.
> The DoJ expanded the case beyond the browser issue to a general
> "middleware"
> entities or "products." These included RealAudio, Apple's Quicktime and
> the
> Java platform (tied into the browser mostly) as well as Intel's NSP.
>
> The resulting complexity of the case, where there could be a non-tech
> tying
> on some "products" and tech-tying on the browser.
Not really, because the only actualy tying violation Microsoft was
accused of was tying the browser to the OS.
The rest of the material was simply supposed to establish that Microsoft
had a certain pattern of behavior. Assuming a real distinction between
"tech tying" and "non-tech tying", Microsoft could hope to win a
determination that this material was irrelevnat.
> Now we're supposed to believe, because Boies threw a lot of innuendo,
> that
> somehow web enabled software was prevented from using the Windows
> platform
> and that this competition would challenge the OS monopoly.
Microsoft appeared to believe it in their internal memos. The internal
memos seem to take the "browser as a platform" threat very seriously.
And how did Microsoft react? Well, here's a quotation from Jim Allchin:
=====
Memphis [Microsoftıs code-name for Windows 98] must be a simple upgrade,
but most importantly it must be killer on OEM shipments so that Netscape
never gets a chance on these systems.
=====
> The DoJ theory is that web middleware allows outside challenges running
> on
> another platform via the network to come in and challenge the desktop OS.
>
> And not affect the OS product and market.
I'm not sure I understand your point. Obviously it would affect the OS
product and market. The issue is, when there is an OS monopolist, there
are certain responses to the outside challenge that are prohibited by
law.
Under the DOJ's original lawsuit, all Microsoft had to do to comply was
offer a browserless Windows to people who wanted a browserless Windows.
They would still have been permitted to offer the bundled version for
people who wanted that instead. That certainly seems to allow Microsoft
to react to the potential threat posed by browsers.
> Does anyone really believe that an desktop OS that does not have
> web-based
> networking functionality is marketable?
Again, I don't believe the DOJ has ever said that Microsoft should be
prohibited from offering a browser with Windows. All they've said is
that Microsoft shouldn't be allowed to force their browser on customers
who prefer a browser from another vendor.
Compaq might choose to ship its PCs without MSIE, but that doesn't mean
they'll be shipping PCs without browsers. They'll simply be using a
non-Microsoft browser as their default browser. Microsoft prevented
Compaq from doing exactly this.
It is key to recognize the difference between offering a bundle and
forcing a bundle. Prohibiting both of these things would create the
sort of serious issues you have identified.
But under most circumstances I do not see a problem with prohibiting
forcing alone. As I understand the Supreme Court's ruling in Fortner,
they hold the same view... there is rarely a pro-competitive
justification for force-bundling. If the customer wants the bundle, let
the customer *choose* to purchase the bundled version instead of the
unbundled version. IMO, forcing by a monopolist can be justified only
when there is insiginificant demand for the unbundled version. That is
clearly not the case here.
> Antitrust begets competition. However, competition begets monopoly. Why?
>
> Because competion results in winners in the modern economy, which is so
> specialized and tech based. The rise of industries post WWII in
> particular
> has been noted for the change in management and technology utilization
> based
> on war-driven research for one thing.
So, why don't we have monopolies popping up all over the place?
> This is like a couple of fools talking about the man in the moon. They
> have
> no idea what componentized software actually is and what the integration
> of
> the browser and the OS mean in terms of programming.
>
> I have seen no statements made by the two of them at any time that delve
> into the programming code base that indicates that they have any notion
> of
> this. None.
You don't need to understand that. All you need to do is ask
Microsoft's customers whether Microsoft's monopoly power is thwarting
customer demand. You can find a significant fraction of Microsoft
customers who do not want to be force-fed the browser.
As far as I'm concerned, the people who are fools talking about men on
the moon are the ones who are trying to confuse the issue by talking
about code and by trying to spit out textbook definitions of terms like
"operating system".
For antitrust purposes, code is irrelevant; it is customer demand that
matters. For antitrust purposes, what some computer science professor
defines as the OS is irrelevant; it is what OS buyers define as the OS
that matters.
> If Eric was up for sentencing, had his mother there to testify on the
> proper
> sentence, as well as a number of points to be made, and the judge then
> said
> that he had made up my mind, you have lost the case, so I am going to
> give
> the sentence recommended by the prosecutor. This is so distorted in our
> system of law that the judge would have to be removed.
Microsoft got to argue in front of the judge, and got to file additional
briefs regarding the proper sentence, just as the DOJ did.
Sure, Eric may not have been allowed to put his mother on the stand
during sentencing, but the prosecution wasn't allowed to put the victim
on the stand either.
I do not think Jackson showed bias. I do agree that he rushed to
judgement. Much time and effort was spent on the first part of the
case, which proved that we have a serious competitive problem. The
complexity of the problem, I believe, dictates spending some time
thinking about the best way to fix it. I don't think Jackson did that.
I also would not have imposed a breakup of Microsoft based solely on the
record in this case.
> Probably there are few federal cases with such substantial violation on
> the
> accused's right to call witnesses in its behalf. This a fundamental part
> of
> due process.
How many witnesses is enough? Twenty? Fifty? Five thousand? Everyone
in the country who ever bought Windows?
Furthermore, Microsoft did such a bad job with the witnesses that they
*did* call that it looks extremely weak for them to make an argument
like this. If the people they *were* able to put on the stand were so
bad, how can you imagine that the people in line *after* them were going
to be any better? Perhaps this is part of the reason Jackson decided
there was no point in calling more witnesses for the penalty phase.
--
Eric Bennett ( http://www.pobox.com/~ericb/ )
Cornell University / Chemistry & Chemical Biology
Lighthouse, n. A tall building on the seashore in which the government
maintains a lamp and the friend of a politician.
------------------------------
From: "D'Arcy Smith" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2000 01:04:22 GMT
"T. Max Devlin" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> >> Why do you think I'm not paying attention to you saying that. I've
> >> remarked on it at least once, I know. I didn't say "why are you on a
> >> particular side of the issue", I asked "why are you confounding the
> >> issue" with the seemingly conflicted comments which you make *about*
> >> your seemingly conflicted comments.
> >I didn't make any conflicting statements... unless you assumed I was on
> >a particular side of the issue (particularily on the side that has no
issue
> >with the licensing).
> I'm pretty sure that I wouldn't be the only one to read those words and
> begin to suspect that you believe the licensing to be enforceable.
I beleive that the licensing probably in enforcable. I don't think that
it should be.
> By
> suggesting that I had assumed (which I seldom do, I'm afraid to say) you
> weren on the side that has no issue with the licensing, and you continue
> to try to confound the argument, I'd guess that you are on the side that
> has no issue with the licensing, but you don't wish to address that.
How much clearer can Istate it - I don't think a license should
be required.
> Understandable, of course. But you'd be better simply not addressing
> it, then, or making the point that you don't want to address it clear
> without seeking to mask your position.
Try reading what I am saying instead of reading stuff into it.
> >Somebody made a blanket statement that it is illegal wo write DVD
software
> >for (IIRC) Linix. That unqualified statement is wrong - it can be done
if
> >you have a license.
> The statement is not wrong, even without the qualification.
So you think that it is illegal to write DVD software for Linux?
> It can be done even if you don't have a license.
Now I am confused... you just siad that you think it is illegal.
I guess you misread the statement and thought it said it was
legal?
> it would be legal if you had a license. The discussion began, of
> course, you may recall, with a consideration of DVD as a barrier to
> entry, simply because Linux doesn't have it (and also partially that the
> behavior of the benefactors appears to be unethical in itself; we were,
> after all, discussing Microsoft.)
Which brings me back to the other point - how exactly does MS
affect the licensing again?
> So perhaps I'm being presumptuous, but I think I have a good nose for
> these things. And I'd say it is distinctly possible that the reason you
> refuted a claim that it is legal whether you have a license or not,
> which was indeed the 'blanket statement' and was not provided any
> further qualifications by the author, is because, again, you believe it
> is illegal to do so without a license.
I believe that people have been taken to court over the issue.
So far it looks like the court agrees with the copyright holder
(but it ain't over till its over).
I don't think that it should be illegal without a license though.
However what I beleive can be in direct conflict with the
reality of the situation.
> Yet, it
> intrigues me that you would feel the need to qualify a statement
> provided as opinion with what looked to be a purposefully ambiguous
> statement, and then continue to confound the issue at what seems to be
> every possible opportunity you can find. Why do you do that?
Because I wanted people to focus on the reality that you could
indeed provide DVD software in Linux in a legal way. My
personal opinions do not enter into that one way or the other.
> >> It is not illegal to write such software - if you don't have a
> >> license.
> >Apparently it is - or at least the license holder is willing to take
people
> >to court over the issue - and get the police involved.
> All the more reason not to provide the pre-requisite 'burden of proof',
> eh? After all its *licensing*. They were going to *pirate* stuff, and
> we all know where *that* would lead....
I don't agree with the court case.
> >> So I'll ask you straight: Do you believe that it is legal to write DVD
> >> software on Linux without a license, and do you believe that whether it
> >> was reverse engineered would change that?
> >I beleive that it should be legal. I don't know if it is legal... that
> >will be decided in the court case.
> Well, perhaps we have hit the point of *real* misunderstanding. Maybe
> my comments have already clarified it, but its worth repeating to make
> it clear.
> It is legal until some court determines it is illegal, not the other way
> around. So we know it is legal. And since you don't think it should
> become illegal, you really have no reason for all this pretense of
> ambiguity.
All I was pointing out was that it is definatly not illegal
with a license... good grief.
> Perhaps if you knew that at the time, you wouldn't have
> bothered trying to convince people that it is illegal to do so by
> repeatedly pointing out "of course its legal, as long as you have a
> license."
It is clear and unambiguous that you will not be taken to
court for provding Linux DVD software as long as you
have a license and follow its restrictions.
It is not clear oan unambiguous that you can do the same
without a license.
> Obviously, I'm not saying that nothing is illegal until the perpetrator
> of a crime is convicted. Stealing is illegal, murder is illegal,
> monopolization is illegal. But accessing a DVD you legally purchased is
> not illegal, and enabling others to do the same is not illegal, either.
Unless it puts you in violation of copyright etc... which is a crime
(at least in some countries). Thus yes you could be doing something
illegal... but IANAL - are you?
..darcy
------------------------------
Crossposted-To:
comp.infosystems.gis,comp.infosystems.www.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,gnu.misc.discuss
Subject: Re: A guise for Marxism (Was: businesses are psychopaths
From: Craig Brozefsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: 07 Sep 2000 18:04:18 -0700
[EMAIL PROTECTED] (Perry Pip) writes:
> >> Anarcho-syndicalism is just a marxism hybrid under the guise of a
> >> fancy name to hide that it is just another form of marxism.
> >
> >Most Marxists, including Marx and Lenin, would disagree with this
> >assesment.
>
> Marx would disagree that Leninism is a form of marxism. So??
It would indicate that an authority on a particular political-economic
analysis, Karl Marx, disagrees with your original statement that
anarchism is "just another form of marxism". As for the differences
between Marxism and Leninism, one should be careful to to confuse the
conflict between Lenin and the Plehnekov/Kautsky school of Marxism,
with an assesment of Lenin's theory by Marx himself.
It's true that Lenin's theory differed from Marx, particularly in his
assesment of the situation in Russia prior to the revolution, and the
role that peasants would play in a revolution against a weak
bourgeoise. These differences are rooted in the historical context
within which they applied their dialectics, not in a deep theoretical
difference.
> >The think that anarcho-syndicalism is bourgeois wishful-thinking,
> >and that the proletariat must take over the State and it's power in
> >order to repel the counter-revolution. See Lenin's "State and
> >Revolution"[1] or his letters to the 10th Congress of rhe Russian
> >Communist Party[2] for further explanation of the "Marxist"
> >assesment of anarchists.
>
> Those were works after the worker uprisings degraded into
> totalitarianism, and Lenin had to justify his claim to power.
"State and Revolution" was written prior to the Bolshevik takeover.
The 10th congress was indeed after the Bolsheviks were in power, but a
reading of Lenin's prior works would make it clear that the statements
there are a continuation of his earlier position. A scan of the
writings of Lenin, Marx, Kautsky or Trotsky prior to 1917 would reveal
their differences with the anarchists. A read of Kropotkin's work
will show the differences he felt seperated his anarcho-communism from
Marxist theory as well, going all the way back to the 1870s
> >Well, the last time that I know of there being anything resembling
> >anarcho-syndicalism would be the Spanish Civil War. The ideal of
> >anarchy did not fail there, instead the Communists sold out the people
> >to the Fascists.
>
> Their system failed because it left a vacuum of power. Any such
> anarchist movement is doomed. History has proven that.
History doesn't prove things in that manner. The world is not static.
History does show that nothing is permenant, wether it's
entrepreneureal capitalism, or anarchism. Truisms such as yours
belong in elementary school, where thats all we're told.
> Sure, they are mirrored on the Marxist Internet Archive as well. If it
> wasn't Marxist, why are Marxist's preaching it as one of their claims
> to fame: http://www.marxists.org/history/index.htm. The main ideas
> in anrachism can be found in the writings of Marx and Engel.
The dialectic of class struggle was shared between the anarchists and
communists (anarchists originally shared the name too), but they
differed radically on their revolutionary theory, as well as their
theory regarding the State and it's role in bringing about Communism.
As early as 1870 Kropotkin was writing against the tendency towards
authoritarianism in Marx's "german socialism", as well as the writings
of Plehnekov and Lenin. Much of his work while an exile in Western
Europe was directed at the Marxists. Again, Lenin's "State and
Revolution" might be the best illustration of their differences from a
Marxist position. Kropotkin's "The State: It's Historic Role"
approaches the topic from the anarchist perspective.
> Yes...like the vast majority of working people in industrialized
> nations today who are doing quite fine thanks to capitalism.
That a convenient falsehood one can hide behind when they shutter
themselves to the rest of the world.
> Violence only breeds more fear and distrust. It certainly won't teach
> people to be more altruistic, which is what your philosophy
> requires. That's utterly stupid. All forms of this worker uprising
> bullshit have historically failed...and led to disaster for the workers
> who were supposed to benefit.
"History by Pollyanna" seems to be your forte.
Well, I should have expected as much on usenet.
--
Craig Brozefsky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
"Revolution begins by giving things and social
relationships their real names". -- L. Trotsky
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Crossposted-To:
comp.lang.java.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.advocacy,comp.os.ms-windows.nt.advocacy
Subject: Re: How low can they go...?
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 17:45:05 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
lyttlec <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message
news:[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> "T. Max Devlin" wrote:
While talking about monopolist let us not forget about DeBeers.
------------------------------
From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Why I hate Windows...
Date: Thu, 7 Sep 2000 17:52:35 -0700
Reply-To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
<[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:8p8c1c$kp9$[EMAIL PROTECTED]...
> On Sun, 4 Sep 3900 21:30:01, "Erik Funkenbusch"
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> blessed us with these
> henscratchings:
>
> BTW, I've never run into this in detailed or
> any
> form at all in the usual win-help ng's.
Quite so, I suppose hanging around with us in in groups like COLA, something
good is rubbing off on some of the winvocates. ;-) Perhaps they may take
some of that back to their own tech groups and revitalize them.
------------------------------
** FOR YOUR REFERENCE **
The service address, to which questions about the list itself and requests
to be added to or deleted from it should be directed, is:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
You can send mail to the entire list (and comp.os.linux.advocacy) via:
Internet: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Linux may be obtained via one of these FTP sites:
ftp.funet.fi pub/Linux
tsx-11.mit.edu pub/linux
sunsite.unc.edu pub/Linux
End of Linux-Advocacy Digest
******************************
